On 2016/3/26 3:22, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Fri, 25 Mar 2016 14:56:04 +0800 Xishi Qiu <qiuxishi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> It is incorrect to use next_node to find a target node, it will >> return MAX_NUMNODES or invalid node. This will lead to crash in >> buddy system allocation. >> >> ... >> >> --- a/mm/page_isolation.c >> +++ b/mm/page_isolation.c >> @@ -289,11 +289,11 @@ struct page *alloc_migrate_target(struct page *page, unsigned long private, >> * now as a simple work-around, we use the next node for destination. >> */ >> if (PageHuge(page)) { >> - nodemask_t src = nodemask_of_node(page_to_nid(page)); >> - nodemask_t dst; >> - nodes_complement(dst, src); >> + int node = next_online_node(page_to_nid(page)); >> + if (node == MAX_NUMNODES) >> + node = first_online_node; >> return alloc_huge_page_node(page_hstate(compound_head(page)), >> - next_node(page_to_nid(page), dst)); >> + node); >> } >> >> if (PageHighMem(page)) > > Indeed. Can you tell us more about this circumstances under which the > kernel will crash? I need to decide which kernel version(s) need the > patch, but the changelog doesn't contain the info needed to make this > decision (it should). > Hi Andrew, I read the code v4.4, and find the following path maybe trigger the bug. alloc_migrate_target() alloc_huge_page_node() // the node may be offline or MAX_NUMNODES __alloc_buddy_huge_page_no_mpol() __alloc_buddy_huge_page() __hugetlb_alloc_buddy_huge_page() alloc_pages_node() __alloc_pages_node() VM_BUG_ON(nid < 0 || nid >= MAX_NUMNODES); VM_WARN_ON(!node_online(nid)); Thanks, Xishi Qiu -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx"> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>